Why did Qadri kill Governor Taseer?
January 12th, 2011
The anti-terrorism court (ATC) in Islamabad, on January 10, listened to a confessional statement of Mumtaz Qadri, the policeman who killed Governor Salmaan Taseer. He said he had acted “alone” and that he had planned the murder over three days before manoeuvring to get himself posted in the special police squad which protects the Punjab governor.
The killer also revealed that he was persuaded to carry out the murder after listening to the ‘rousing sermons’ delivered by Maulvi Hanif Qureshi and Ishtiaq Shah at a religious gathering, on December 31 near his residence in Rawalpindi. He said in his statement: “These sermons not only moved me to act against the man who spoke against the sanctity of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) but compelled me to stand up against those who were demanding changes in the blasphemy laws.”
Mr Qadri also exonerated “any political or religious group” of involvement in the governor’s assassination. Several religious groups have of late been protesting against what they claim is a conspiracy to change a law considered sacred. In this context, it is also claimed that the aim of this alleged conspiracy is to change the blasphemy law, an act which will encourage people to commit acts of blasphemy against the Holy Prophet (pbuh). This, of course, is not true and nothing can substantiate such a serious allegation, which is made with much impunity by the clerics.
Following Taseer’s murder, a debate has arisen with protagonists arguing that Qadri and the governor represented two extremes. This is where the Pakistani mind needs to be concentrated. It is entirely wrong and self-serving on the part of those who lean on extremism to say that ‘religious extremism’ and ‘liberal extremism’ are equally bad. Regrettably, the country has for some time regarded liberalism as a borrowed or imported value, serving the interest of ‘foreign powers’ hostile to Pakistan. The hidden message is: put an end to liberalism and you will see Pakistan moving away from ‘religious extremism’. Liberalism, alas, will always remain a minority reaction among those who fear some kind of endgame in ‘religious extremism’. Equating the two is not a wise thing to do because no one will ever say that Pakistan is threatened by ‘liberal extremism’ or that liberal extremist suicide bombers are roaming the streets killing innocent people. The religious speakers who affected the thinking of Governor Taseer’s killer say they are not to blame for what happened. According to their statements, they simply said that a blasphemer had to be dealt with in accordance with the law and that “Sherry Rehman should not bring an amendment bill to parliament but should take recourse to the court of law”. The statements betray a lack of knowledge of the country’s institutional working. But Mr Qadri could not have stood up to say that the courts in Pakistan adjudicate in accordance with the laws as framed or amended first by parliament.
What the religious parties are getting wrong is the difference between the law itself and its abuse. Any law, divine or human, can be abused and this can be set right not by removing the law but reformulating it in such a way through procedural readjustment that the aspects of its abuse are minimised. Was not the Hudood Law misused on a daily basis by the police which took money to book the accused under Hudood, rather than the normal law, to make the process more punishing? What Maulvi Hanif Qureshi and Ishtiaq Shah should have noted is that poor, illiterate and unprotected persons belonging to minority communities are often trapped under the blasphemy law. It takes long years for them to be exonerated by the higher courts and the wrongful accusers are never called to account. What happened to Mumtaz Qadri is happening to most of us falling under the influence of the campaign of misplaced outrage led by clerical parties. The court may not find them directly guilty of having plotted to kill Governor Taseer through him, but any rational person will agree that the atmosphere of extreme reaction deliberately created in the streets and mosques of Pakistan is responsible for Mr Qadri’s actions.
Missing years
January 12th, 2011
If the complaint by one of the plaintiffs in the missing persons case — that another 100 people have been ‘picked up’ since April last year — is accurate, it is a disturbing reminder of all that is wrong with our system. It is significant that the additional attorney general, who appeared before a three-member Supreme Court bench hearing the case, did not deny that more people were being taken away, but emphasised only that 134 had been recovered.
The court’s reassurance that the over 100 or so persons missing in the country would be recovered in 2011 is encouraging. So is its commitment to penalise those responsible for their illegal detention. We all know this means the agencies which operate beyond the command of the civilian government. Bringing them to account for their actions could change a great deal about how the business of the state is conducted in Pakistan. The perception of the agencies themselves, as well as of other people, that they are immune from prosecution, appears to have encouraged the whisking away of people — the largest number from Balochistan. The SC action in the Adiala Jail case and the acceptance by agency bosses that they were bound to follow judicial orders has been a key step in changing the tide.
It is, in some ways at least, a pity that the report of the Judicial Commission set up by the SC in the matter will not be made public. The court has agreed to this. But what is most important is that there is no repetition of the actions seen since 2002 against citizens who fell under agency scrutiny. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, vanished in these years. Some have yet to be located. Clear-cut instructions must go out to the agencies in this respect. It is also important that we gain clarity about the command structure that regulates agencies. They must not be permitted to continue to play the role of a ‘state within a state’. This function has weakened democratic governments in the past and led to grotesque abuses of rights, as we see in the missing persons case. It is time for such actions to stop and measures to be taken to prevent more people from being taken away from their homes or from the streets.